Gender biases in leadership evaluations persist, as male leaders are often credited for positive outcomes while negative outcomes are attributed to their selfish decisions. On the other hand, female leaders are often perceived to have bad luck when facing negative outcomes.
This was revealed by a study conducted by the University of East Anglia, which found that such biases were exhibited by male evaluators and evaluators who were more inclined to act in ways that benefit others.
Assessing decision-making
Leaders in both the public and private sectors are responsible for making decisions that impact the well-being of others. Political leaders, for instance, make policy choices that affect the welfare of their constituents.
When making such decisions, leaders face a dilemma between maximizing their own gains or maximizing the gains of others. In these circumstances, traditional gender roles may suggest that women are expected to act in a more altruistic way.
The study examined how leaders’ decisions were evaluated and whether evaluators displayed bias in attributing outcomes between male and female leaders in these environments.
“Due to society’s growing demand for social responsibility, those in leadership roles are under more scrutiny than ever before,” the researchers explain. “As a result, leaders across the board are expected to be aware of their impact on social welfare and engage in more prosocial activities.”
Prosocial motivations
“The actions of leaders are motivated by prosociality, which in turn have consequences on the welfare of group that they are leading,” the authors continue. “It is therefore important to understand whether male and female leaders are assessed differently, since the evaluations are likely to affect individuals’ decision-making processes.”
According to the study, there is no discernible disparity in the evaluation of positive outcomes attained by male and female leaders, implying that both genders are deemed equally altruistic once they have demonstrated their ability to deliver favorable results.
However, when male leaders achieve unfavorable outcomes, they are more likely to be held responsible for their own selfish decision-making, while their female counterparts are more likely to be seen as victims of misfortune. Consequently, when faced with failure, men tend to receive more criticism and be perceived as being driven by self-interest compared to women.
In a laboratory setting, the researchers gauged individuals’ perceptions of others’ actions, specifically in a decision-making environment reminiscent of many leadership scenarios. They focused on the influence of leaders on the well-being of the group under their charge.
Perceiving others
Since the evaluators were unable to observe the leaders’ actions directly, they had to rely on the outcomes delivered, thereby subjecting them to evaluation based solely on their performance. However, the gender of the leaders was disclosed to the group at large. The team detected biases in the attribution of outcomes that appeared to benefit women, although they cautioned against hasty conclusions.
“One interpretation of our results is that male evaluators may see the need to treat female leaders more favorably, therefore giving them a greater benefit of the doubt in the face of failure,” the researchers explain.
“A possible explanation for this is benevolent sexism, which tends to lead to behaviors toward women that are often characterized as prosocial. It is driven by the stereotype that women need to be protected.”
Despite the apparent bias favoring women in the attribution of negative outcomes as evidenced in the study, such biases could still have unfavorable consequences for women.
For instance, gender biases that benefit women in evaluations may impede their career growth and raise the likelihood of backlash against female leaders in the long term. These biases could also create distortions in the incentives offered to all decision-makers occupying positions of authority, regardless of gender, and ultimately undermine their future actions.
